Of course they're estimates Horus, but they are estimates made by multiple different agencies independently.

Here are some of the sources:

International energy agency

http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2143
http://www.iea.org/stats/countryresults.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=AU&Submit=Submit

Carbon dioxide Iformation analysis center
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/trends.htm

UNFCCC

http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/time_series_annex_i/items/3814.php

I cannot give you a margin of error, but you can estimate the variance in the different estimates if you like.

One thing I am reasonably certain of though, is that Australias emissions are far higher than 0.01% of the total. Why not take Leigh to task on this, and ask where he got his estimate from and what are his margins of error? If there's good data to back that number up, I am willing to change my stance.

Horus: "If we are to rubbish/discredit Tim Ball (& others on the sceptics side) because some of their views are unorthodox."

My discrediting of Tim Ball had nothing to do with his unorthodox views. Everyone is allowed unorthodox views.

What they aren't allowed to do is claim they are a Professor of Climatology, when they if fact _never_ held that title and have not published a single peer reviewed paper on the subject. Nor are they allowed to represent themselves as someone presenting a thoughtful, personal analysis of the subject when they are in fact paid mouth pieces for corporations who are conducting a propaganda war against AGW.

This doesn't necessarily mean that Tim Ball is wrong of course. But is does mean that if you are interested in canvasing opinions on whether AGW is correct or not, Tim Ball and his ilk aren't the people to ask. They will give you the same answer regardless of whether AGW is right or wrong. It is like the old story of the broken clock. It is not that it is always wrong - it isn't. It is that is isn't even trying to give you the right answer. Tossing a dart board blind folded would give you just as reliable answer, particularly so in Tim Ball's case as he is paid to ensure there is only one number on it.

In light of Ericc’s comment that this article is clearly from the heart, I have re-read it.

I come to the same conclusion as expressed in my earlier post – that it is crackers!

<< Once the Copenhagen conference brings population into the climate change equation, fingers will be pointed at the poorer countries and in particular at poorer people. >>

NO! Come on Farida. We need holistic discussions that take into account all significant factors.

<< This will allow rich countries to turn attention away from their responsibilities of reducing carbon dioxide emissions towards easy ways of funding family planning programs to reduce the population. >>

Of course a big part of the discussions is to put all the factors into perspective and to not accept attempts from any countries to divert their own responsibilities.

However, if it helps raise the issue that the developed countries are not doing enough to help to poor countries and that much more international aid is needed, well isn’t that a good thing?

Farida, you just don’t seem to place any significance in the great urgency to which population growth needs to be addressed or the fact that even if we are amazingly successful in addressing climate change, we’ll still be in very deep poo if we don’t address population growth.

RStuart,
“My discrediting of Tim Ball had nothing to do with his unorthodox views”

Ah, but it was part of your barrage. Remember this:
“ He has also argued the hole in Ozone layer was caused by the Sun's activity, not CFC's”
Translation: look how out of touch he is.

Personally I have never met the man, nor read his pieces –But, you, obviously know him intimately –even to the extend of being able to read his mind!
“I think it is fair to say Dr Ball's primary concern when making a statement about science is not whether it is true or not, but rather how much he will be paid for making it.”.

And, you find him incapable of being thoughtful & analytical because of his employment history :
“Nor are they allowed to represent themselves as someone presenting a thoughtful, personal analysis of the subject when they are in fact paid mouth pieces for corporations who are conducting a propaganda war against AGW.”
I wonder though, do you apply the same measure to Greenpeace employees, associates & fellow travellers?

Farida, population is a serious issue, increasingly so as the planet's capacity to support ever growing numbers diminishes and climate change threatens agricultural production. Yes, the bulk of climate change in the pipeline to date is down to the wealthy West. No, the poor are not to blame but the world is coming up against the limits of what it can support and famine is the inevitable consequence of continued population growth and it will be people in nations that are high population, poor and vulnerable to climate change impacting agriculture that will bear the brunt. No matter how the problems arose refusing to make an effort on population looks unwise.

The Developed West needs to do the most and has to support low emissions sustainable development everywhere. For the most part they aren't and don't. Australia, shamefully, is one of the worst in that respect.

It's understandable that the developing nations aren't happy with nations like Australia - the world's biggest coal exporter and getting bigger and doing the least it can get away with rather than the most it's capable of - but you offer no particular solutions and seems to be more intent on assigning blame. High population growth plus development based on high emissions growth can only lead to disaster for nations like Bangladesh.

Horus: "Translation: look how out of touch he is."

No. Translation: look, anti AGW isn't the only contrarian opinion he is paid to espouse by his masters.

Horus: "But, you, obviously know him intimately –even to the extend of being able to read his mind!"

Odd that it is obvious to you, as it is wrong. I do however know do to use a search engine. I presume you do too, but just in case you don't I gave the links I found supporting what I said.

Horus: "do you apply the same measure to Greenpeace employees"

Yes, I do. I have learnt to look up the background of the writer of most of the stuff I read, and follow up references. There is just too much junk out there to do anything else.